From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 06 2005 - 01:38:00 GMT
Hi Ham,
> You said:
> > I see you have a scale of moral values relative to your personal self-
> > interest. But then you switch gears and proclaim a universal value--the
> > sanctity of human life.
> The sanctity of human life is an absolute principle, yes; but not because I
> "proclaim" it so.
Well then, because it . . .? I presume your essentialist philosophy can
complete the sentence, but I must have missed that part. Can you briefly
summarize how your philosophy concludes that human life is holy? Is it
because we humans are a species of Essence itself, and Essence by
definition is sacred?
> > But, suppose I and others don't subscribe to your belief in your
> > universal "sanctity of man?" What then?
> Then, it appears that neither of us will enjoy the morality we both want.
As I look around the world, I don't see much morality to enjoy, especially
coming out of the Middle East in the form of Bin Laden's interpretation of
the Koran.
> It would seem that Pirsig's moral structure isn't winning the battle,
> either. The jackass prevails. Do you really think that universal
> comprehension and acceptance of the MoQ would raise the level of morality
> in the world?
Yes, but it will be a long time coming. The MOQ.org website is just a
beginning ripple.
> > But, it's interesting that your statement is based on the premise that
> > there is "right and wrong" which looks like a universal moral standard to
> > me from my seat here in the balcony.
>
> You're really stuck on that word "universal", aren't you? And you had me
> thinking you were an individualist! Why don't you get down off the balcony
> and tell me why you are so averse to moral relativism? Maybe we can cure
> that phobia.
I'm adverse for the simple reason that without universal moral standards, your
moral standard and mine and the guy's over there behind the tree each carry
equal weight with the result that all of us are good if we say so, no matter
what. As we have learned the hard way from history, any evil can be
rationalized as good. That's the problem. (Now I'll climb down from my
pedestal and return to the balcony.)
> > What I meant to convey was that without universal moral
> > standards, who is to say that anything is right or wrong, or if they do
> > say it, why should we pay any attention?
>
> I suppose there will still be a moral consensus, a.world court, and a civil
> rights union, among other 'authorities' to rule on behavior, until man is
> wise enough to realize his essential nature and accept personal
> responsibility for his wrongdoings.
When you say "wrongdoings," you seem to be invoking some sort of universal
moral principle. In any case, I wouldn't want to have my morality
determined by majority vote.
> > As for man's role in the universe, I believe he is here to make the
> > universe better than it was or would be without him, guided by the
> > principle of rightness. By understanding the universe's moral structure,
> > man is better able to accomplish that purpose.
>
> I was about to ask, who is to tell us what is "better", until you mentioned
> "the principle of rightness". What, exactly, is that? I must have missed
> that principle in my reading of Pirsig.
As I see it, the "principle of rightness" means advancing moral evolution,
which means lifting as many of your thoughts as possible into the logical
intellectual level as opposed to living your life guided by your
irrational emotions or by what society demands of you. Some here consider
mystic "enlightenment" to be the way forward, but have yet to spell out
what that path will lead to much less what mysticism is other than the
absence of thought.
Does my answer make any sense to you?
Regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 06 2005 - 01:58:48 GMT